Stopped from taking pics on southbank because camera looks too professional.

rampanthamster

rampanthamster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,250
Edit My Images
Yes
Just a quick one, I'm down at the water fountains on the south bank with my kids. I got my 5d and 50mm out and started taking a few shots and within two mins was approached and told that basically I couldn't take pictures. When I pointed out the dozens of people within twenty feet of us taking pics, I was told that the problem was that my camera looked too professional.

Granted, most others were using phones but several are using dslr / bridge cams etc. so what's the deal with this? My camera isn't gripped by the way...
 
rampanthamster said:
Just a quick one, I'm down at the water fountains on the south bank with my kids. I got my 5d and 50mm out and started taking a few shots and within two mins was approached and told that basically I couldn't take pictures. When I pointed out the dozens of people within twenty feet of us taking pics, I was told that the problem was that my camera looked too professional.

Granted, most others were using phones but several are using dslr / bridge cams etc. so what's the deal with this? My camera isn't gripped by the way...
Click to expand...

If it was me I'd carry on shooting :lol:
I don't know the legalities of Southbank but I have heard of people being asked to stop along there before.
 
Who stopped you?
 
legalities depend on whether its private land (i'd guess the water features probably are) - Pro's require a licence for commercial work most like
 
It is privately owned, and professionals need to obtain permission and pay a fee.
Of course they would need to prove you're a pro shooting for personal gain on their property..
 
I take it this is in London?
 
JakeT1992 said:
It is privately owned, and professionals need to obtain permission and pay a fee.
Of course they would need to prove you're a pro shooting for personal gain on their property..
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking they don't - if its privately owned they can just tell you to stop or leave .. the onus is on you to convince them otherwise (although if you agravate them they'll probably just evict you anyway)
 
Yep come across this before,Ive always pointed out that I am not a pro just because my cameras looks it,and usually they back down after a bit of a chat :)
 
big soft moose said:
Strictly speaking they don't - if its privately owned they can just tell you to stop or leave .. the onus is on you to convince them otherwise (although if you agravate them they'll probably just evict you anyway)
Click to expand...
I'm sure they'd need reasonable grounds to evict you from the area. I'm not saying go all guns blazing, just explain the situation. A 5D classic can be bought for the same price as a good compact these days, merely a tourist who enjoys good IQ.
 
Some security guidelines on what constitutes a "professional camera" are very amusing. I've been stopped in sports venues whose guidelines for "professional" are "equipped with a lens more than 200mm". So, according to their rules, I'd be okay with THIS but not THIS.
 
I got asked what I was up to along there although not stopped as well, ironically it was when the Thames Festival was on and there was a photography competition.
 
London is full of places where commercial photography isnt allowed and can be a real headache.
never had any issues shooting along the south bank but have been stopped at the Thames barrier ( though i was allowed to shoot the barrier but not the buildings due to security reasons ).

also been stopped around Katherines Dock ( where the timepiece sculpture is at 3am in the morning.. the reason.. because i was using a tripod and it might be a danger to other people ( at 3am in the morning yeah ok mr security guard! .. jumped up little squirt ).

many roads and streets you can find small brass plaques or even metal strips in the footpaths that denote private and public land ( quite alot of buildins have a metal strip about 3-4 feet out from the walls around them and found out its a boundary marker.

the whole area around Nelsons column ( trafalgar square ) no commercial photography is allowed.

With Section 44 repealed it does make things a little easier and i carry a photographers rights card with me at all times ( the new BUST card is still being updated ). but you will always get one jumped up jobsworth who thinks they know better and wants to try confiscate your camera or tell you to delete the images ( which they have no rights to do and nor do the Police ).

depends what kind of mood im in and how im approached in the first place.. If the security guard / jobsworth approaches and poliety asks and explains why fair do's but if they come at me all guns blasing i'll come back at them twice as hard.
 
As has been said, if you are on private land where photography is prohibited then you must put your camera away. If you are on private property were "commercial photography" is prohibited or requires a licence then if you intend to carry out professional assignments there, you must purchase the license. But what irritates me is the fact that so many security guards make a stupid presumption that a large camera means you are shooting commercially - when in fact your photography is every bit as recreational as everybody else's! I would say the onus is therefore on them to prove otherwise, which is quite impossible therefore you should be allowed to carry on unimpeded - after all, you've done nothing wrong. The best thing to do is take a deep breath, smile, and explain that to them. I cannot see how they would have grounds to persist with their argument.

Remember that security guards have no more powers than you or I, they cannot arrest you, confiscate your property, or instruct you to delete your photographs. In fact the police can't (or rather, shouldn't) do any of those things either without reason to suspect that you are connected with a crime or act of terrorism.

I have had this happen to me so many times - I virtually gave up recreational/sightseeing photography as a result, at least until I bought some very small cameras! I suspect that is the best solution I'm afraid.
 
I have only been challenged by someone claiming to be security once and on that occasion I told the bloke that I required him to confirm his identity, his status within the company he claimed to be working for, and by what authority he sought to challenge me ... and I wanted it in writing. At that point he went a lovely shade of purple and ran off, apparently to fetch a policeman or so he said. Don't know whether he came back with one or not because I finished taking the shot I was after and buggered off elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Lindsay D said:
As has been said, if you are on private land where photography is prohibited then you must put your camera away. If you are on private property were "commercial photography" is prohibited or requires a licence then if you intend to carry out professional assignments there, you must purchase the license. But what irritates me is the fact that so many security guards make a stupid presumption that a large camera means you are shooting commercially - when in fact your photography is every bit as recreational as everybody else's! I would say the onus is therefore on them to prove otherwise, which is quite impossible therefore you should be allowed to carry on unimpeded - after all, you've done nothing wrong. The best thing to do is take a deep breath, smile, and explain that to them. I cannot see how they would have grounds to persist with their argument.

Remember that security guards have no more powers than you or I, they cannot arrest you, confiscate your property, or instruct you to delete your photographs. In fact the police can't (or rather, shouldn't) do any of those things either without reason to suspect that you are connected with a crime or act of terrorism.

I have had this happen to me so many times - I virtually gave up recreational/sightseeing photography as a result, at least until I bought some very small cameras! I suspect that is the best solution I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
They have the power to use reasonable force to evict trespassers.
 
As far as I know, a lot of the South Bank is a Public Right of Way, but is privately owned. Therefore, they can demand that you stop shooting, but I'm not sure what powers they have to actually evict you from the property?

Edited to add: Yes, I've been stopped from shooting there too (with a 5D). Well, actually, I was told that I couldn't take photos of the new office blocks, etc, but that I could take photos of Tower Bridge.
 
Last edited:
I would sincerely hope that no photographer would stand their ground if asked to leave private property! As I said, you have to abide by the rules, but if you are not breaching those rules then there is nothing wrong with pointing that out (politely of course).

I think you and I also have the power to use reasonable force to evict trespassers, their powers are no greater than ours.
 
I have changed to ccs Fuji,but got asked a couple of times what I was taking photos of durning an local festival,apparently I was acting like an pro,lots of other people were around taking photos ?
 
melaniejane said:
As far as I know, a lot of the South Bank is a Public Right of Way, but is privately owned. Therefore, they can demand that you stop shooting, but I'm not sure what powers they have to actually evict you from the property?

Edited to add: Yes, I've been stopped from shooting there too (with a 5D). Well, actually, I was told that I couldn't take photos of the new office blocks, etc, but that I could take photos of Tower Bridge.
Click to expand...

To evict you, you would have to be trespassing. If the area is a public right of way then you are not trespassing by passing along it. I would think that if you are breaching the regulations under which you are permitted to pass across the property then you can be told to leave, and if you refused they could call the police.

If you were on their property, and if the new office blocks are theirs, then the site holder is perfectly within their rights to ask you not to photograph those buildings.
 
simonblue said:
I have changed to ccs Fuji,but got asked a couple of times what I was taking photos of durning an local festival,apparently I was acting like an pro,lots of other people were around taking photos ?
Click to expand...

Acting like a pro?? So you were raising a camera to your eye and pressing a button. If that indicates that you are shooting with commercial intent then their powers of deduction are quite remarkable. It's both annoying and disheartening when strangers decide to question you on your activities and your motives, when you're doing nothing wrong and you're trying to enjoy an innocent hobby.

I used to get this all the time when I used to visit National Trust properties a few years back (benefiting from an extortionate priced life membership). On one occasion I patiently explained to the woman who had approached me, somewhat rudely, that I'm trying to enjoy a personal photographic outing just like everyone else, and the photographs are important because I want to show them to my mother and uncle who are disabled and can no longer come with me. I was told to direct my relatives to their website instead, where there are pictures they can look at. At this point I told the woman I would hang around and watch while she spent the rest of the morning preventing everyone else from taking pictures (even though the policies at that property clearly allowed recreational photography). When the size of my camera was mentioned I tried to explain that this was in fact irrelevant, and was no indication of my inability to read or understand the rules, nor was there any evidence of any intent to break those rules. In the end I boycotted the NT for a while, then visited with a small compact which resulted in no further hassles, bar one occasion, when another woman obviously thought I was 'acting too professionally'.
 
Lindsay, yes, much as I was a bit peeved that my shot was spoiled, I know they were perfectly within their rights to ask me to stop. They were polite about it, so no major problem.

In terms of the right of way, my thoughts were the same as yours, that as long as you were abiding by the rules then you should not be asked to leave.
 
Lindsay D said:
To evict you, you would have to be trespassing. If the area is a public right of way then you are not trespassing by passing along it. I would think that if you are breaching the regulations under which you are permitted to pass across the property then you can be told to leave, and if you refused they could call the police.
.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking you would be trespassing if you were photographing against landowners wishes whilst on a PRoW , because the public right is only to "freely pass and repass by permitted means" not to do anything else (as far as I know no one has ever been prosecuted for trespass by photography ... most of the cases I've been involved with ( 5 years as a RoW officer) or aware of relate to ether fishing or cycling on a public footpath , but that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen) - there's also the issue that to photograph you'd probably be standing still , which would mean you'd also probably be obstructing a PRoW which is a separate offence (this is the law in England, wales and NI , Scottish access law is different)

and there's also the issue that, unless otherwise stated on the definitive map, the usual definitive width of a footpath is 3ft / 90cm - if you step outside of that corridor then you are technically trespassing (unless you are on access land where different rules apply) - this is frequently exacerbated by the definitive line not being anywhere near the actual route on the ground. When I managed the thames path a perennial issue was that for much of the length the definitive line was actually in the river as a result of bank erosion.

Bottom line is that the chance of getting prosecuted is vanishingly small so long as you don't act like a plonker , but you can certainly be moved on.
 
Last edited:
Lindsay D said:
I used to get this all the time when I used to visit National Trust properties a few years back (benefiting from an extortionate priced life membership). On one occasion I patiently explained to the woman who had approached me, somewhat rudely, that I'm trying to enjoy a personal photographic outing just like everyone else, and the photographs are important because I want to show them to my mother and uncle who are disabled and can no longer come with me. I was told to direct my relatives to their website instead, where there are pictures they can look at. .
Click to expand...

I'd rather not get drawn into that particular debate ( I work for the Trust but any views expressed are my own blah blah blah) - but I will say that that staff member/volunteer was well out of line as that isn't the official policy on photography on NT properties (which is basically that recreational photography is fine - except in some of the houses where it may not be allowed for specific reasons mostly to do with rare artefacts and flash and/or big rucksacks and fragile things, professional photography needs to be paid for) - I hope you reported them to their General Manager and/or to Heelis as if that were a member of my team I'd be having a "frank and honest exchange of views" with them about visitor welcome and customer service.

By the way on the 'extortionate price' of life membership - I believe the break even point at which it is better value than pay yearly is about 20 years. Clearly in your case this is going to be money well spent ;)
 
rampanthamster said:
Just a quick one, I'm down at the water fountains on the south bank with my kids. I got my 5d and 50mm out and started taking a few shots and within two mins was approached and told that basically I couldn't take pictures. When I pointed out the dozens of people within twenty feet of us taking pics, I was told that the problem was that my camera looked too professional.

Granted, most others were using phones but several are using dslr / bridge cams etc. so what's the deal with this? My camera isn't gripped by the way...
Click to expand...

So what happened in the end??

To my mind the conversion should have gone something like this "Good afternoon Sir can I ask if you are shooting pictures for commercial use?" "No I am not they are for personal use only" " OK thank you Sir but I would like you to know that the management company for XYZ holdings do not allow commercial photography without a permit" " OK thank you"

Security guard wanders off having fulfilled his instructions to pester people with big cameras, and the photographer carries on.

David
 
big soft moose said:
I'd rather not get drawn into that particular debate ( I work for the Trust but any views expressed are my own blah blah blah) - but I will say that that staff member/volunteer was well out of line as that isn't the official policy on photography on NT properties (which is basically that recreational photography is fine - except in some of the houses where it may not be allowed for specific reasons mostly to do with rare artefacts and flash and/or big rucksacks and fragile things, professional photography needs to be paid for) - I hope you reported them to their General Manager and/or to Heelis as if that were a member of my team I'd be having a "frank and honest exchange of views" with them about visitor welcome and customer service.

By the way on the 'extortionate price' of life membership - I believe the break even point at which it is better value than pay yearly is about 20 years. Clearly in your case this is going to be money well spent ;)
Click to expand...

Have to say that I have never had issues at NT properties and often get "Did you get the pictures you wanted?" or something similar, that's often with 2 x DSLR's slung around my neck!

As for costs I reckon it's great value and SWMBO and I have certainly had value from our membership fees :)
 
In fact the police can't (or rather, shouldn't) do any of those things either without reason to suspect that you are connected with a crime or act of terrorism.

in fact they cant do that anymore.. not since Section 44 was repealed and they can now only rely on section 43

this is the old Bust card
http://nottingham.indymedia.org.uk/...16/142/photographer_not_terrorist_s44bust.pdf

but with the change over section 44 it is no longer valid hence a new one is being worked on .


s43 Terrorism Act 2000, police need reasonable grounds to suspect that
you are a terrorist (use or intend to use violence/cause serious damage to
property to influence government or intimidate public to advance a political,
religious or ideological cause) and can search anything that may be evidence
you are a terrorist, including computers, cameras, personal papers.

They cannot delete images or confiscate memory cards or camra without obtaining a court order. and they have no right to ask you to delete them either.
 
They can however evict someone who is refusing to leave private land (as indeed can a security guard so long as they don't assault you in the process) - which has nothing to do with the terrorism act so the above is true but irrelevant

End of the day, if you are silly enough to p*** them off they'll find something to charge you with - "refusing to obey a lawful order / obstructing a constable in the course of his duties" is handy catch all , plus if you are daft enough to get shouty and aggressive, BoP
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
They can however evict someone who is refusing to leave private land (as indeed can a security guard so long as they don't assault you in the process)
Click to expand...

I thought that they could only do that if they had reason to believe you were a threat to people or property.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I thought that they could only do that if they had reason to believe you were a threat to people or property.


Steve.
Click to expand...

this is true - however its the easiest thing in the world for the landowners rep to say " I told him to leave and he refused aggressively, and this made me feel threatened" bosh - reasonable grounds to believe that you're a threat to people or property , now sling your hook before we nick you, Capisce
 
Few years back AP gave away a freebie lens cloth with photographers rights printed on it. Keep it in my bag, but as yet never had the need to quote from it.
If I was within my rights would definitely stand my ground, suppose it depends what sort of person you are and how far to take it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top